The Intel Optane SSD 800p (58GB & 118GB) Review: Almost The Right Size
by Billy Tallis on March 8, 2018 5:15 PM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.
As with The Destroyer, the average data rate of the Intel Optane SSD 800p puts it near the top of the rankings, but behind the fastest flash-based SSDs and the Optane 900p. Intel's VROC again adds overhead that isn't worthwhile without the high queue depths of synthetic benchmarks.
The average and 99th percentile latencies of the Optane SSD 800p on the Heavy test are better than any of the low-end NVMe SSDs, but it is only in RAID that the latency drops down to the level of the best flash-based SSDs and the 900p.
The average read latency of the Optane SSD 800p ranks second behind the 900p. VROC adds enough overhead that the RAID configurations end up having slightly higher average read latencies than the Samsung 960 PRO. For the average write latencies, VROC is far more useful, and helps the 800p make up for the lack of a write cache.
The 99th percentile read and write latencies of the 800p RAID configurations are on par with the 900p, but the individual drives have slightly worse QoS than the Samsung 960 PRO.
The 800p again leads in energy usage thanks to its high overall performance without the high baseline power consumption of the 900p. The budget NVMe SSDs all use at least twice as much energy over the course of the test, and the Samsung 960 PRO is closer to the budget drives than to the 800p.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
116 Comments
View All Comments
AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, March 14, 2018 - link
No. My understanding is that most load times are CPU bound, and there's a negligible difference from most 500MB/s SATA III drives vs the Samsung 950/960 vs Optane. That makes it completely pointless for almost all users.emvonline - Friday, March 16, 2018 - link
so any reasonable calculation says chip can be cycled 7-10k times (mlc nand is specd at 10k). And total tbw is less than most of the competion 960 pro ssds. is this true? so its around enterprise mlc in endurance???mkozakewich - Sunday, March 18, 2018 - link
Why is everyone so bad at figuring out when to use things? This would be great in any environment where you're prioritizing low-queue-depth transfers. Obviously it's not going to replace your computer's SSD.MDD1963 - Friday, March 23, 2018 - link
When these things cost less than and/or exceed the performance of the 960 EVO, perhaps then they will begin to sell....DocNo - Thursday, April 12, 2018 - link
Use this as L2 cache with PrimoCache and prepared to be amazed. I have the 64GB Optane paired with Primocache and the performance difference is notable - even with my primary drive being a Samsung M2 Pro series SSD drive. If I wasn't so happy with my current setup I'd be all over this new drive as an L2 cache. And unlike Intel's caching software for Optane, Primocache is trivial to install with no special requirements for BIOS or partitioning.http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache/ind...
Primocache is also the most inexpensive way I have found to accelerate Windows server too. I'm a huge fan!
Chongsboy - Monday, August 27, 2018 - link
Not sure where you guys work, or what you have against optane is, but under server conditions, a new mb design, would be wonderful for servers, ie: cloud servers. Where workers are a fricken arm and a leg, hardware costs is not that much of an issue, especially special discounts intel will give to big players. I feel that most ppl here commenting negatively dont actually run real life servers, dealing with thousands, maybe not even hundred requests per minute. Reliability amd speed trumps prices for these servers as if you dont realize aws and all cloud providers are ripping people off, and thats why these c rooked companies are earning billions. Anyways, i deal with these cloud systems in my work. I for one expect all large companies to mov to optane, because it's just that fast, and reliable: ie facebook, aws, azure, what not. Dunno why people are going nuts... we got intel haters galore here...